what happens when I say "No" to people

My coaching's not for everyone, and some people have a hard time getting that. 

They think it's just about trading services for money.

I don't work that way.

Yes, I require a significant financial commitment investment of my students. (It's a minimum investment of $5,000 to work with me and students pay up to $20,000.) 

But this opportunity will cost you more than just money. You must be ready to invest your time and energy. You must be ready to commit to this process and make it such a powerful force in your life that it will have a lasting impact into law school and beyond.

In more cases than you'd think, I have to turn students away because they're not willing to invest of themselves the dedication it takes to succeed.

Now, I promised you a story in the subject line, and I'm going to deliver.

Here's why I said "No" to one student (and his reaction):

I ask potential students to email me their answers to a list of background questions before we speak. This allow us to make the most of our time together during the call.

His answer to some questions was incomplete, and he completely skipped others with no explanation.

When I asked him to fix them, he didn't.

He failed to get back to me about our first potential appointment time, and basically said "anytime works" when I asked him to suggest a few.

So, you can imagine how frustrated I was by this point. I'd given him several chances to show what kind of student he'd be, and he'd let me down every time.

Finally, I'd had enough!

Here's what I initially wrote:

I'm going to take the option of coaching off the table for now. I only work with highly-motivated, high-performing students who are willing to invest significant time and energy in their LSAT prep. This is the 2nd opportunity I've given you to complete the questions and confirm a specific date and time.

My coaching's not for everyone, but I'll still do what I can to point you in the right direction. Just let me know what you need right now.

All the best,
Steve

His reaction (full of excuses!):

Hi Steve,

I don’t appreciate that knowing that I have adhd that you associated me with not being highly motivated and high performing. My adhd causes me to forget a lot of daily tasks.

That’s a quick assumption to make on a small number of interactions. Which as we know from the LSAT is not proper logic.

I understand that this is became a waste of you time quickly, which is quick for someone to say when they are ignorant of learning disabilities and disabling conditions.

I will no longer be wasting any of your time.

I'm sympathetic to people with all sorts of unique challenges, but ADHD isn't why I suggested he might not be highly-motivated and high-performing.

It's because of his behavior! 

(So many LSAT students get overzealous in accusing others of flaws right off the bat. But if we look at specific language, we can be more precise in evaluating the arguments and claims we come across.)

My full response:

In my experience, I do see an association between responsiveness, attention to detail, and having those attributes I mentioned. I'm understanding of the ADHD and have worked with students with challenges like this.

I didn't see responsiveness and attention to detail in your answers to the initial questions I asked, or in scheduling our free initial conversation. This leads me to believe that those may not be present in our future potential coaching sessions, or in your LSAT preparation. I work with students who are responsive and detail-oriented. They value our coaching time and LSAT preparation highly enough to find a way to make it happen.

If we were to work together, the first thing we'd do is establish a system to ensure you're giving appropriate attention to our time together and your LSAT preparation. I ask a tremendous amount of my students, and their ability to deliver on those requirements is how we make miracles happen.

Thanks for understanding.
Steve

It's ok that things didn't work out with this guy. Our expectations didn't line up, so it wasn't a good fit. Maybe there's a tutor out who will go to his house every day and babysit him to make sure he studies.

I'm not that guy, and that's not how I work.

I ask a tremendous amount of my students, and their ability to deliver on those requirements is how we make miracles happen.

If you think you might have what it takes for LSAT coaching, reach out and let me know.

-LSAT Steve

P.S. Are you taking the LSAT within the next few months? Or are you taking it 6+ months from now?

Whenever you're taking it, I'd like to know:

What's giving you the most trouble with your LSAT studying?

and 

What would you like to learn more about?

(For example, are you having a hard time getting started, and you need some advice to stay motivated? Or have you started already, but you're finding that Logical Reasoning questions make your head spin?)

Yeah, I know everyone has different areas of difficulty, but I'm going to take the most commonly mentioned topics and focus on them going forward.

Questions from students like you are what led me to write 1,000+ free articles, publish best-selling LSAT guides, and create a series of popular LSAT courses. Your feedback inspires me to keep sharing with you.

Looking forward to hearing from you!

LSAT sufficient assumption formulas (with examples)

In my last article, I walked you through how to solve Sufficient Assumption questions using an incredible formula I discovered. Here's a quick recap: Evidence: D ---> E Conclusion: D ---> F Sufficient Assumption #1: E ---> F Sufficient Assumption #2: NOT F ---> NOT E with photo of connecting parts that are different going clockwise:

Evidence: A ---> B Conclusion: C ---> B Sufficient Assumption #1: C ---> A Sufficient Assumption #2: NOT A ---> NOT C with photo of connecting parts that are different going clockwise:

Now, let's add on to the first example above (mentioning D, E, and F) to include a 4th variable, G. Evidence: D ---> E Evidence: G -> NOT E Conclusion: D ---> NOT F We can take the contrapositive of the second piece of evidence to give us "E -> NOT G" Then, we can link the two pieces of evidence together to give us: Evidence: D -> E -> NOT G Conclusion: D -> NOT F Just like before, since the sufficient conditions are the same, we can link the necessary conditions to give us: Sufficient Assumption #1: NOT G ---> NOT F Sufficient Assumption #2: F ---> G Just like before, we link the parts that are different, going clockwise (in this case, the necessary conditions). *** Now, here's an example based on a real LSAT PrepTest question: Suppose we have an argument where the evidence is: Evidence: C -> NOT T Evidence: P -> T Conclusion: P ---> NOT H Again, we can take the contrapositive of the evidence, then link it to the other piece of evidence to form a longer chain: Evidence: P -> T -> NOT C Conclusion: P ---> NOT H The middle piece of evidence about "T" is irrelevant. We can link NOT C to NOT H forming the (sufficient assumption) conditional statement: Sufficient Assumption: NOT C ---> NOT H This conditional, when combined with the evidence, forms a longer chain guaranteeing our conclusion. Same thing works if we have the contrapositive: Evidence: C -> NOT T -> NOT P Conclusion: H ---> NOT P Again, the middle piece of evidence about "T" is irrelevant. We can link H to C forming the (sufficient assumption) conditional statement: Sufficient Assumption: H ---> C This conditional, when combined with the evidence, forms a longer chain guaranteeing our conclusion. Here's the answer choices for this one, diagrammed: (a) H -> T (b) H -> C(c) T -> P (d) H -> NOT C (e) C -> NOT P We see that choice B (H -> C) is exactly what we predict based on our formula. Cool, huh? More fun LSAT goodies coming your way soon. -LSAT Steve P.S. By the way, for those who have it, this example is based on an actual LSAT question: PrepTest 35 = October 2001 LSAT, Section 1, Question 22, p226 in Next 10. Recommended Resources: 1. LSAT CoursesThe best of my LSAT material with exclusive access to attend my Live Online LSAT Master Classes + Q&As, and on-demand video lessons you can watch anytime. Plus, LSAT study plans to keep you on track. Save hundreds of dollars with an LSAT course package. 2. Logical Reasoning Explanations The explanations that should have come with the LSAT. These don't just fall back on "out of scope," but actually tell you why the wrong answers are wrong, why the right answers are right, and the easiest way to get the correct answer. 3. Logical Reasoning Cheat Sheet Based on what I'd typically do in college: read what the professor emphasized and condense it all onto a single piece of paper. It gave me a quick reference, making things a lot less threatening and a lot more manageable.

Free Stuff | YouTube | Podcast | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Books | Courses

Why you get LSAT sufficient assumption questions wrong (and how to fix it)

Got an email asking about Sufficient Assumption questions: "For some reason, I really struggle with these questions. Any advice would be appreciated." Got another one that's kinda related: "Do you think it is necessary to be able to diagram for the LSAT?" I'll answer the 2nd question, first.

Just kidding, obviously. Yes, you do need to be able to diagram --- But you SHOULDN'T diagram for all question-types!!! Quick sidenote on that: Some people are big on diagramming. I think it's useless for informal logic questions, which are MOST of the Logical Reasoning section! When I DO diagram, it's for *some* Must Be Trues/Most Strongly Supporteds, *some* Sufficient Assumptions, and *some* Parallel Reasonings. ****** Today, I'll focus on Sufficient Assumptions, since that's what the 1st - more significant - question was about. Like I said, these are one of the few question-types often worth diagramming. I think of Sufficient Assumption Qs as providing information that, if true, would be sufficient to guarantee the argument's validity. In other words, this information, if true, will guarantee the conclusion's validity. In a general sense, the most common formats for these questions, are (in order of complexity): 1. restatement of conclusion / argument 2. contrapositive of conclusion / argument 3. the format I'm about to share with you (called linking conditions) I've found this 3rd format to be the most common. (Click here for a big list of Sufficient Assumption questions in each of these formats.) I'm going over the most common format with formal logic, then with a few examples from real PT questions: Evidence: D ---> E Conclusion: D ---> F Sufficient Assumption #1: E ---> F Sufficient Assumption #2: NOT F ---> NOT E Why does this work? Because if we take our evidence, "D ----> E" and combine it with our Sufficient Assumption "E ---> F", we get a longer chain D ---> E ---> F that fully guarantees our conclusion, "D ---> F." Cool, huh? When I first discovered this, it completely blew my mind! The contrapositive's a bit tougher to understand, so let's take a look at it: Evidence: A ---> B Conclusion: C ---> B Sufficient Assumption #1: C ---> A Sufficient Assumption #2: NOT A ---> NOT C Why does this work? Because if we take our evidence, "A ----> B" and combine it with our Sufficient Assumption "C ---> A", we get a longer chain "C ---> A ---> B" that fully guarantees our conclusion, "C ---> B." Now, why doesn't A ---> C work? Well, let's try it: If we take the evidence A ---> B and add the Sufficient Assumption A ---> C, all we get is that A requires both B and C. It does nothing to tell us that B and C are conditionally or directly related to each other. Here are the steps to take to use these formulas: Make either the: sufficient conditions of the evidence and conclusion identical (as with the example involving D, E, and F) or necessary conditions of the evidence and conclusion identical (as with the example involving A, B, and C) Then, imagine each of those evidence-conclusion diagrams as a big circle and link the parts that are different going CLOCKWISE. For the first example (with D, E, and F), you get:

For the second example (with A, B, and C), you get:

Cool, huh? Very truly yours, Sufficient Assumin' Steve Recommended Resources: 1. LSAT CoursesThe best of my LSAT material with exclusive access to attend my Live Online LSAT Master Classes + Q&As, and on-demand video lessons you can watch anytime. Plus, LSAT study plans to keep you on track. Save hundreds of dollars with an LSAT course package. 2. Logical Reasoning Explanations The explanations that should have come with the LSAT. These don't just fall back on "out of scope," but actually tell you why the wrong answers are wrong, why the right answers are right, and the easiest way to get the correct answer. 3. Logical Reasoning Cheat Sheet Based on what I'd typically do in college: read what the professor emphasized and condense it all onto a single piece of paper. It gave me a quick reference, making things a lot less threatening and a lot more manageable.

Free Stuff | YouTube | Podcast | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Books | Courses

quick follow-up - and your responses to flawed LSAT-style argument

First off, were you able to point out any flaws in that subway ad I shared the other day? if not........it's ok. It's hard to look at arguments other people make, expose the gaps, and point out what they failed to consider. Sometimes you look at an argument and go, "sounds good to me!" So many people talk about how they "love to argue," but when it comes to studying for the LSAT, they end up arguing with the answer key! Most people have trouble pointing out the flaws in LSAT arguments - especially when self-studying. Because it's hard to do it alone! That's one reason I created the LSAT courses. To walk you through how to deconstruct arguments, point out their flaws, and predict the correct answer - before even LOOKING at the answer key! So, if you weren't able to come up with any flaws in that argument, give it another shot, then look at what other students came up with (and what I said).

Again, evidence is the correlation (in yellow): "Kids of teen moms are twice as likely not to graduate than kids whose moms were over age 22." Conclusion is the text at the top-right: "I'm twice as likely not to graduate high school because you had me as a teen." (Note the "because" in the conclusion, which suggests a causal relationship between these two characteristics, even though the evidence is only a correlation.) What might be some other reasons why there's a correlation between being the child of a teen mom and being less likely to graduate high school? Here are a few of your responses: 1. "failing to take into account the subjective socioeconomic factors, whether the child grows up in a single-parent family, whether there are substance issues involved, many immigrants have children younger than north americans and they generally dont have access to all the resources that many citizens do" 2. "There could be be other factors, such as a reading disability, why a child may not graduate other than having been born to a a young teen." 3. "neglect to consider the possibility that: the proposed cause and effect are both effects of a third common cause. For example, lack of intellectual curiosity might lead one to have baby young and not pay much attention to the intellectual development of the child. Irrational fear of any sort of commitment might lead people to remain single and assume less responsibility, which is arguably a precondition to accomplish anything that amount to satisfaction." My response is kind of a combo of the 1st and 3rd above. I'd say that poverty is a potential "3rd variable" that could lead both to teen pregnancies and being less likely to graduate high school. There are lots of potential holes in this argument, alternative possibilities/explanations, etc. It's ok if your response is different from mine. Bottom line is, if you take a look at the world around you, you'll find there are TONS of flawed arguments everywhere you look - especially in advertisements and politics :) After you check your responses against these, reach out and let me know how you did on this. (If enough of you had trouble, maybe I'll send out another exercise like this sometime!) -Steve P.S. If you haven't joined the LSAT courses and just want a quick list of some flaws, I put one together here ---> Recommended Resources: 1. LSAT Courses The best of my LSAT material with exclusive access to attend my Live Online LSAT Master Classes + Q&As, and on-demand video lessons you can watch anytime. Plus, LSAT study plans to keep you on track. Save hundreds of dollars with an LSAT course package. 2. Logical Reasoning Explanations The explanations that should have come with the LSAT. These don't just fall back on "out of scope," but actually tell you why the wrong answers are wrong, why the right answers are right, and the easiest way to get the correct answer. 3. Logical Reasoning Cheat Sheet Based on what I'd typically do in college: read what the professor emphasized and condense it all onto a single piece of paper. It gave me a quick reference, making things a lot less threatening and a lot more manageable.

Free Stuff | YouTube | Podcast | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Books | Courses

can you find the LSAT flaw in this advertisement?

Whenever I'm on the subway, I can't help analyzing the advertisements and pointing out their flaws... like this one:

But first, I'll ask you. What's wrong with this picture?  Maybe you just feel bad for the crying baby (appeal to emotion)... But there are some major problems with this argument. (It's guilty of at least a few of the flaws in this list.) Take a few minutes.... x xx xxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Did you try to figure it out? Ok.  I'll trust that you did. Now, let's break it down, evidence-conclusion style: Evidence is the correlation (in yellow): "Kids of teen moms are twice as likely not to graduate than kids whose moms were over age 22." Conclusion is the text at the top-right: "I'm twice as likely not to graduate high school because you had me as a teen." (Note the "because" in the conclusion, which suggests a causal relationship between these two characteristics, even though the evidence is only a correlation.) What possibilities - what potential alternate causes or explanations - is the subway ad failing to consider as explanations for that relationship? In other words, what might be some other reasons why there's a correlation between being the child of a teen mom and being less likely to graduate high school? (If you have trouble thinking of any, then you should consider joining my LSAT courses, where I walk you through TONS of examples in order to show you how to do this ---- quickly.) Reach out with your ideas. I'll share a few in my next article, and my own thoughts on it. Until next time.... Steve - Subway Ad Destroyer P.S. The best responses get a free prize :) Recommended Resources: 1. LSAT Courses The best of my LSAT material with exclusive access to attend my Live Online LSAT Master Classes + Q&As, and on-demand video lessons you can watch anytime. Plus, LSAT study plans to keep you on track. Save hundreds of dollars with an LSAT course package. 2. Logical Reasoning Explanations The explanations that should have come with the LSAT. These don't just fall back on "out of scope," but actually tell you why the wrong answers are wrong, why the right answers are right, and the easiest way to get the correct answer. 3. Logical Reasoning Cheat Sheet Based on what I'd typically do in college: read what the professor emphasized and condense it all onto a single piece of paper. It gave me a quick reference, making things a lot less threatening and a lot more manageable.

Free Stuff | YouTube | Podcast | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Books | Courses